A decade-old land use controversy may be put to rest if Oregon lawmakers approve the final touches to a compromise on replacing destroyed or demolished farm and forest dwellings.

An agreement between advocates for property rights and land conservation would create permanent standards for replacement dwellings in these natural resource zones.

House Bill 2192 has already passed the House and must now clear the Senate.

“It’s not often when some of our interest groups around land use come together and sit at the same dais and say they’ve worked and agreed to a bill they both can live with,” said Rep. Ken Helm, D-Beaverton.

While the revisions to HB 2192 are not contentious, the bill’s future may be affected by a Republican protest that’s denied the Senate a quorum needed to pass laws.

The concept may prove enduring, though, as proposals delayed by past walkouts have eventually been approved at the last minute or in later legislative sessions.

Bipartisan support for the compromise may also help its chances.

“There are enough sideboards here that it shouldn’t be taken advantage of or violated,” said Rep. Mark Owens, R-Crane.

Replacement dwellings have proven to be a sensitive issue in the state’s land use system, which prioritizes protections for farms and forests.

Lawmakers have long sought to avoid opening loopholes for development, which is why they’re conservative with how such provisions are worded, Helm said.

The dispute has flared up repeatedly since the Legislature set criteria for replacement dwellings in farm zones in 2013.

A disagreement over the time limit to rebuild demolished or destroyed houses resulted in an Oregon Supreme Court ruling, which in turn was overridden by lawmakers four years ago.

Even that bill didn’t fully resolve the matter, however.

Questions have since been raised about whether replacement dwellings in forests are subject to tougher requirements than those on farms.

Meanwhile, the legislation passed in 2019 is scheduled to expire in 2024, which could make it harder to rebuild houses in either zone.

Supporters of HB 2192 want to address these issues by aligning the rules for both dwelling types and making them permanent.

“This brings those criteria together so the standards in the farm zone are the same as in the forest zone,” said Dave Hunnicutt, president of the Oregon Property Owners Association.

The bill extends the 2019 regulations for farmland to forestland, allowing destroyed dwellings to be rebuilt as long as they once had elements common to modern homes, such as a roof and walls.

Existing law could be understood to mean that homes in forest zones can only be replaced if they still retain those components, disqualifying structures totally wiped out in fires or other disasters.

If the 2019 legislation sunsets next year, that same barrier may also apply to replacement dwellings in farm zones.

“Obviously, when a property is destroyed, it no longer has those accoutrements,” Hunnicutt said. “It did up until it’s destroyed. Once it’s destroyed, it no longer has the four walls.”

The initial version of HB 2192 threatened to reignite the debate over loopholes, with critics arguing “look back” language would allow landowners to replace any homes that existed within the past 50 years — even if they’d been destroyed decades ago.

These time limit provisions were narrowed during discussions over the bill, which ultimately allows landowners to rebuild within three years of a dwelling’s destruction. That change convinced the 1,000 Friends of Oregon farmland preservation nonprofit to drop its opposition to HB 2192.

“It is clear there is no look back period possible,” said Mary Kyle McCurdy, the group’s deputy director.